Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] (no subject)
From: Erik Steffl (steffl_AT_bigfoot.com)
Date: Sat Aug 14 2004 - 02:02:20 EEST
Dylan wrote:
> On Friday 13 Aug 2004 20:02 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
>>Dylan wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday 12 Aug 2004 20:43 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dylan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi List,
>>>>>
>>>>>This may be somewhat off topic, but I figure some of you may well
>>>>>know the answer...
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm trying to set up an audio server to connect to my home stereo,
>>>>>and have been looking for an app with the following features: web
>>>>>based interface for playlisting, and playback through local sound
>>>>>card.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've found plenty of options which provide streaming, but none
>>>>>which play through the server's own sound system.
>>>>
>>>> have client on the same machine.
>>>
>>>I don't want to stream the audio anywhere at all. Why on earth
>>>should I have to install, configure and maintain a streaming server
>>>and client when I can simply have the machine play the file
>>>directly - less resources used, less to go wrong, less to worry
>>>about.
>>
>> you have to install, configure and maintain jukebox a player
>>anyway,
>
>
> To my mind, the application which indexes and organises the media files
> need have nothing to do with the playing of said files, except that it
> needs to be able to call a player app.
>
>
>>whether they communicate via network (streaming) or not is
>>not really a big issue... or a big difference in resources used.
>
> I'm sorry, but I disagree.
no need to be sorry, did you measure it?
>>Most
>>jukeboxes use external players anyway.
>
> Good, I hope they are able to use a player of my choice.
>
>>Or do you want jukebox with
>>built-in player?
>
> Definitely not.
>
>>Freeamp could possibly be used as jukebox (I found
>>it somewhat unstable but haven't used it for quite some time). Or
>>xmms with some plugin (there are some plugins that offer better
>>control than default playlist). And instead of web interface use X
>>across network (or vnc if you want to be able to disconnect/reconnect
>>from/to jukebox/player).
>
> There's no X on this box - why should there be if it's headless?
so that you can display whatever you want to display on another
machine. I am not saying you should be using it but just because the box
is headless doesn't mean there shouldn't be X installed.
> If I was intending to have this server stream to clients on the network
> then, yes, configuring it to stream to itself would be appropriate. But
> I'm not - that introduces all sorts of timing and bandwidth issues.
timing - possibly, might be important for full-duplex recording but
for audio player???
bandwidth - what bandwidth? it's on local box. no network involved.
yes there is overhead which might be significant if you are using a
really really low end machine, think calculator (but if you're already
running web server and audio player it cannot be that low end)
maybe you could just try it and see if it works well enough, I have
an impression that you simpy said "no streaming" and that's it. It might
be better to specify functional requirements (like what you want it to
do, what machine you have available for it etc.) and then try various
solutions and see which one works best. Not saying you _shuld_ use
streaming but no harm trying it and if you find juke box you really like
and it only can do streaming and you get acceptable performance then why
not use that solution?
I did try number of them (jukeboxes) and didn't notice any difference
in performance (IIRC that was on pentium 1G)
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Aug 14 2004 - 02:05:52 EEST